ANNEX
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES BY HM PRISON SERVICE
LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FROM
RT HON PAUL BOATENG MP
DRUGS AND
PRISONS
When I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee
on 16 May I promised to write to you on a number of issues. This
letter meets that commitment and also deals with the issues raised
by Mr Barrett in his letter to Martin Narey of 18 May. I have
delayed writing before now so as to be able to provide as full
responses as possible.
Chelmsford Prison
Bob Russell asked when Chelmsford prison would
have facilities to allow the searching of visitors. Visiting facilities
at Chelmsford are not ideal. In particular there is insufficient
space within the visits area to provide a discrete searching area
to enable visitors suspected of bringing contraband into the establishment
to be strip-searched. Proposals to extend the visits facilities
have been prepared but it has not yet been possible to provide
capital funding to undertake this work due to other competing
priorities. The Prison Service is currently looking at the priorities
for funding over the next three years following the SR2000 settlement.
The Area Manager for Chelmsford will consider its needs in the
light of its performance in reducing the supply of drugs entering
the prison. There are of course clear and effective systems in
place at Chelmsford to prevent contraband in general and drugs
in particular from entering the prison. Visitors are required
to pass through a metal detector and are routinely subject to
rub down searches. A drug dog operates within the visits area
and CCTV has been installed within the visits area and staff are
currently being trained in its use. Prisoners leaving visits at
Chelmsford will invariably be subject to a rub down search and
may be subject to a strip search either randomly or because of
suspicion. The current level of positive drug tests at Chelmsford
Prison to 30 June 2000 is 5.4 per cent (from 5.2 per cent of the
total population tested). This compares very favourably with the
average figure for the Prison Service as a whole.
Whilst facilities at Chelmsford are therefore
not as good as we would like the current position with regard
to drug use in Chelmsford is very encouraging and indicates that
the overall drug strategy within the prison is operating very
effectively.
Lowdham Grange
Concerns were raised at the levels of Comprehensive
Spending Review funding allocated to Lowdham Grange. Although
Lowdham Grange were allocated £7,000 for voluntary drug testing
they are funded a further £30,000 for their CARAT services.
You may know that when putting in place contracts for the treatment
elements of its drug strategy the Prison Service clustered together
groups of prisons. This provided greater levels of consistency
and economy. Lowdham Grange is part of a cluster of prisons covered
by one CARATs contract. As a result, the contract is paid for
directly by the area manager. As part of that contract Lowdham
Grange receives one extra drugs worker. Prior to the availability
of Comprehensive Review Funding Lowdham Grange employed a full-time
drug counsellor. As Lowdham Grange does not receive prisoners
from the courts and rarely releases prisoners, the area manager
concluded that two specialist drug workers would provide an adequate
service.
Mandatory Drug Testing
We discussed whether the mandatory drug testing
(MDT) scheme causes prisoners to switch from cannabis to opiates.
Martin Linton raised the issue of the anecdotes from prisoners
and staff that MDT was having that effect. I have heard those
anecdotes too. Clearly I cannot make wide-ranging policy changes
on the basis of anecdotes, particularly as all of the evidence
which exists paints a very different picture. The results from
the MDT scheme indicate that both cannabis and opiate use have
fallen since the programme began. When the rumours of switching
began to appear separate independent pieces of research took place.
One by the National Addiction Centre, the other by the Oxford
Centre for Criminological Research. Neither study found conclusive
evidence of switching.
The Prison Service is in the process of putting
together a package of research on the effectiveness of the drug
strategy. Given that the anecdotes about MDT remain, included
in this package is further research into whether the programme
causes switching. We expect that research to conclude by March
2001.
I turn now to the issues raised in Mr Barrett's
letter of 18 May which we did not have time to discuss.
TREATMENT PROVISION
INDUCTION AND
ASSESSMENT
To what extent do current assessment procedures
on induction successfully identify all those addicted to hard
drugs?
(i) The CARATs programme is directed at
early identification of those prisoners with a drug misuse problem.
Referral can be from a number of sources, including medical and
other staff involved in the initial reception process. Information
indicating drug misuse, such as pre-sentence reports, is known
for a significant body of prisoners on or soon after their arrival.
The proactive liaison of CARATs staff with external agencies will
increase the quantity and quality of such information. All prisoners
arriving at remand prisons are normally subject to medical screening.
A revised Healthcare Standard to be introduced later this year
will reinforce the requirement for this medical screening. Of
course, it is not only on induction that drug use can arise. A
prisoner may have not been using drugs at the time of arrival,
but might relapse subsequently. CARATs is designed to allow referral
throughout the period of imprisonment as well as at induction,
and it is important that this is so.
Drug misuse is a clandestine activity, and 100
per cent detection at any one time is unlikely. Although there
are no figures available, initial medical screening, the CARATs
process, and information from external sources should mean the
vast majority of drug misusers are identified early on. Behind
this, there is the MDT programme, CARAT referrals during sentence,
and prison intelligence reports which will identify further problem
drug users, such as those who relapse.
The case for 100 per cent testing of prisoners
on arrival is not straightforward. There are constraints in resources
and pressure of numbers. To test in this way would duplicate the
initial stages of the CARATs process, designed to identify and
engage with drug misusers. I am not yet convinced that dip and
read testing of all prisoners on reception represents the best
use of available resources, but have asked Martin Narey to look
further into this option.
Has the Prison Service estimated the cost of 100
per cent testing of prisoners on induction using dip and read
kits in light of the Committee's recommendation at paragraph 149?
(ii) In arriving at a cost estimate, one
must bear in mind that although the actual analytical process
for dip and read tests is comparatively rapid—no more than
15 minutes—the sample-taking process is more time-consuming.
In order to ensure that prisoners cannot adulterate or dilute
the sample, and to protect staff from unwarranted allegations
of malpractice, MDT best practice involves the deployment of two
prison officers to oversee sample provision. Time allowed for
sample provision is between four and five hours. This alone would
severely disrupt the reception process, as good practice involves
holding prisoners in isolation until the sample is provided. Whilst
most samples will be provided in much quicker time, no figures
are available. While a small number of individual prisons are
able to test prisoners on reception, busy local prisons which
receive large numbers of new prisoners daily would face severe
practical difficulties. It is unlikely that these could be resolved
without significant capital expenditure to create suitable holding
facilities.
The minimum cost, based on testing only those
prisoners received for the first time from Court, would be in
excess of £9 million, including staff deployment costs. To
test all receptions, such as transfers and those returning from
Court would cost considerably more. This cost excludes any capital
expenditure necessary.
REMAND AND
SHORT-TERM
PRISONERS
Do you agree that for remand and short-term prisoners
who are addicted to hard drugs it will take more intensive intervention
than can be provided by the CARAT service if their cycle of addiction,
crime and imprisonment is to be broken?
(iii) The Government agrees with the Committee's
view. For many such prisoners there is simply insufficient time
to deliver a recognised drug treatment programme while they are
in prison. There is a limit to what the Prison Service can do,
since established rehabilitation programmes are typically of around
three months duration. For short-term and remand prisoners, the
only intervention possible will generally be the CARATs system,
which can review their drug misuse, suggest appropriate treatment,
engage the prisoner in counselling and group work and try to arrange
a direct referral on release, for adequate treatment to be delivered
in the community. The key here is good quality assessment from
the CARATs service coupled with the ability of community drugs
agencies to accept such offenders immediately on release. There
are concerns in some areas about treatment capacity, but the Prison
Service is working to assist DATs in identifying these, so they
can be remedied. We are also working closely with Keith Hellawell
and his team to ensure that the national strategy picks up the
issue of released prisoners.
Has the Prison Service given any thought to developing
brief but substantive rehabilitation courses tailored to the needs
of remand and short-term prisoners?
(iv) The Prison Service is alert to the
problem of not being able to intervene effectively with short-term
prisoners and remands. It is always happy to consider new ways
to treat drug misusers, but effective drug rehabilitation is not
a quick fix. Programmes typically last around three months. This
clearly excludes many short-term and remand prisoners. However,
we are exploring a number of avenues to improve the effectiveness
of the interventions provided to short-term and remand prisoners:
— as the CARATs process settles down
across the prison estate individual prisons and areas are establishing
better liaison with Drug Action Teams to improve the availability
and quality of community services for ex-prisoners;
— we are commissioning research into
the effectiveness of the drug strategy which will highlight the
issue of short-termers;
— we are developing a new initiative
which will see the creation of hostels for those released from
prison.
POST-TREATMENT
SUPPORT FOR
PRISONERS
VOLUNTARY TESTING
UNITS
How far advanced are the Prison Service plans
for a consistent framework and minimum standards for Voluntary
Testing Units?
(v) Plans are well advanced for a consistent
framework and minimum standards for voluntary testing units and
voluntary drug testing programmes. A Prison Service Order has
been issued which will be followed by a more detailed good practice
guide. A single call-off contract for the provision of drug testing
kits (dip and read) is now in place. This will provide consistent,
cost-effective and reliable testing methodology across the Service.
How far in the future is the provision of universal
access to VTUs for all prisoners who wish to participate?
(vi) The Prison Service is committed to
fulfil the Government's pledge to provide voluntary drug testing
for all suitable prisoners who wish to participate by April 2001.
The availability of voluntary drug testing is
the subject of a national key performance indicator introduced
from 1 April 2000.
The target for 2000-01 has been set at 28,000
prisoner voluntary drug testing compacts being agreed during the
year. Considerable progress has been made with the introduction
of voluntary testing programmes. A preliminary analysis suggests
that over 30,000 compacts have already been agreed. In the light
of this the Prison Service will review the KPI target. More generally,
a two-tier approach towards voluntary testing is being taken.
For practical and financial reasons most prisoners subject to
voluntary testing will remain on normal location. But some will
be located in specialised units. From a snapshot taken in April
1999, approximately 7,000 voluntary testing unit spaces were available
in 64 prisons.
The high turnover of the prison population and
the rapid progress being made in implementing the drug strategy
mean that it is difficult to estimate future demand for access
to voluntary drug testing. Demand may change with the changing
population. Prisons have therefore been asked to make a detailed
assessment of likely take-up. The CARATs assessment will assist
considerably with this process.
SUPPORT ON
RELEASE
As the success of the strategy depends in large
part on the effectiveness of the support which a prisoner receives
on release, should this element of the strategy be receiving a
higher priority?
(vii) The Government agrees that unless
treatment or support is maintained in the community, there is
an increased risk of relapse, with offenders returning to crime
and prison. The Prison Service cannot increase the number of community
agencies, however, or compel them to accept ex-offenders. It was
a clear condition of the additional CSR funding received by the
Prison Service that the money could not be spent outside prisons
on community services. The Prison Service is working with UKADCU,
the Drug Prevention Advisory Service and Drug Action Teams to
encourage greater community provision for ex-prisoners.
Within what timescale do you expect the five specialised
hostels to come on stream?
(viii) We aim to have as many as possible
of the five hostels up and running by the end of this financial
year. However, while we are encouraged by the Treasury decision
to allocate funding to the Prison Service this year, there is
a great deal of work to be taken forward on site location, construction/conversion,
legal and administrative agreements with other agencies, and staff
recruitment.
I hope that this is helpful. Do let me know
if you require any further material.
11 September 2000
| 
